#sortinghatchats meta

[wisteria-lodge]

on secondaries ~

Secondaries are about problem solving. That can be a serious problem, or a problem like “boredom” (which is how secondaries relate to hobbies.) But the question is how do people solve problems. That's it. So a good place to start is how people solve problems while alone.

PART 1 - SINGLE PLAYER

BOOKKEEPER BADGER chips away at a problem in increments. Things are done throughly, all the scaffolding in place. No corners are cut. Usually a community's load-bearing support beam (even if they are personally unpleasant.) Would rather do something well than quickly.

COLLECTION BIRD collects knowledge, skills, tools, contacts. If they want something that doesn’t exist out in the wild, they make it. Tend to have a lot of weird, seemingly unconnected skills. The kings of "work smarter, not harder."

~ these are Built secondaries (or Prepwork secondaries) because the more time Badgers and Birds have to build, the happier and more successful they are.

~ Lion and Snake are much much better known for their interpersonal "multiplayer" skills, that’s what you normally see in fiction. But here's how I see their single-player working:

TINKERER LION "what happens if I plug the thing in the thing?" There's a lot of throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. Dive in, figure it out as you go. For examples, think of the more "science flavored" Lion secondaries, like Tony Stark, Lord Asriel, or Merlin (of Merlin.) It's a rarer character type, but it's there.

ENVIRONMENT SNAKE "what have I got to work with, what have I got in front of me, how can I look at it/use it in a new way?" This is Ferris Bueller making his Rube-Goldberg contraptions, or Maria from the Sound of Music making clothes out of curtains. There is also a pot-stirring element to Single-Player Snake: if it turns out that you don't have anything to work with, then do something that changes up the status quo, and react to the fallout. (This a favorite tactic of Jack Sparrow, and the Joker.)

NOTE: I've also seen these guys called "Storage Bunker Snakes," which I think is a metaphor that steps on the toes of Bird a little: when I think of a storage bunker, I think of a collection.

Once interesting observation (thank you @reds-burrow) is that Lions and Badgers work by changing their surroundings, and Birds and Snakes work by adapting to their surrounding. I think this is why a Coiled Spring Badger who has been prepping for a long time before finally releasing can look a lot like a just-go-for-it-and-see-what-happens Tinkerer Lion. And a Rapid-Fire Bird who is really comfortable in their environment can look a lot like an Environment Snake just coming up with things on the fly.

PART 2 - MULTI-PLAYER

We've all got to interact with people (some more than others.) So how is that accomplished?

COURTIER BADGER - There is no acting, they become whoever they need to be in the moment. Mostly this means mirroring the energy of whatever group they're in, and shifting accordingly. This is still a Prepwork secondary, because better you know a group/person, the easier and more effectively you can match them, and the more trustworthy you will seem.

ACTOR BIRD - They have different personas or roles they have prepared beforehand, and which they are able to pull out when needed. Often Actor Birds give their personas names like "Professional!Me" or "Artsy!Me." It's likely that they modeled at least one after a character or another person. It's also likely that they enjoy or rely on costumes.

BEACON LION - We all know this one from fiction. The person who's going to be completely authentic, and if they alienate people then so be it. They hate lying. They feel safest and most powerful when they just put themselves out there and speak their truth. BUT in real life these guys have to face-change just like everyone else. Their metaphor is a raising or lowering of intensity. They are always themselves, but they can be louder or softer versions of themselves.

MASQUERADE SNAKE - Another favorite from fiction. These guys are a slightly different person with everyone they interact with, and while every mask is them, they don't need to believe what they say the way a Badger does. They're also good at choosing what kind of impression they want to make, and telling 'creative truths' - how do I phrase something to get this person to listen to me?

~ This group is interesting, because you can break it down in a few ways. The Prep-work (Badger & Bird) vs In-the-moment (Snake & Lion) divide is still definitely there. But I think it's interesting how Badger and Snakes talk about their mirroring and masks as being fundamentally *them.* Birds talking about personas, or Lions talking about raising and lowering intensity will go... that's constructed, that's something different from *me.* Badger & Snake shifting pulls from the unconscious self, Lion and Bird pulls from the conscious self. @sevilemar is right, that is a real difference.

In which case, I guess for me it comes down to:

PREP-WORK (Badger + Bird) vs IN-THE-MOMENT (Lion + Snake) 

DELIBERATE (Lion + Bird) vs AUTOMATIC (Badger + Snake) 

YOU MOVE (Badger + Lion) vs I MOVE (Bird + Snake) 

(And Neutral? Neutral is what you get when your multi-player is not actively face-shifting (and even Lions face-shift a little.) So... when you're existing in your single-player. And there's no reason you can't be having fun with your single player around people.)

[reds-burrow]

Do y'all want another way to think of the Secondaries? No? Well, too bad! I have a theory that the secondaries exist on a continuum with a clear relationship to subconscious and conscious thought. In this essay, I will

Um, yeah, no, prepare for another one of my essays below the cut.

Ready? Okay, so I propose that Straightforward Secondaries are largely led by their subconscious intuition while Circumventing Secondaries are led by conscious thought. To be clear, I am not saying this is a 100%, 24/7 situation. It's fair to say most of us have listened to both our conscious and subconscious minds at some point. What I want to focus on here is what people trust and are more comfortable with using to guide them. So, for the Secondaries, I'm talking about what a person finds most comfortable using to solve problems.

We can see this with how the Secondaries solve the problem of social interactions. Lions and Badgers being true to themselves is largely informed by their subconscious; what feels like them is intuitive. This is how you get Courtier Badgers who come out of a social situation surprised with themselves because of what came out while they were mirroring others. Since it is a mostly subconscious process, the Courtier Badger doesn't realize until later how they had shaped themself to others. This could also explain why Straightforward Secondaries have more trouble lying. Even if they don't have moral objections from their Primary, Lion Secondaries describe lying as stressful, exhausting, and uncomfortable. That's because successful lying is a conscious act, requiring you to knowingly misrepresent something while considering what is believable to the other person. Prolonged lying is work, a stress that Straightforward Secondaries aren't used to.

Meanwhile the social armor Birds and Snakes have uses a more conscious thought process, showing other people what they want or need to see while keeping the Bird or Snake's vulnerabilities hidden. This may be another part of why Snakes and Birds can seem cold to some people. While a Snake or Actor Bird can learn a mask or role so well that it becomes a part of them, and thus a subconscious act, the act of choosing which face to put on is a calculated choice.

And this pattern carries on when looking outside of the Multiplayer half of secondaries to the Single-Player half. Circumventing Secondaries continually reassess the situation, making sure there isn't an easier way to solve the problem. This reassessing is, again, a conscious act. Meanwhile, Straightforward Secondaries trust their intuition to guide them, as they tend to trust that their first instinct on how to tackle a problem is the best way to handle it.

So, is that it? Instead of Straightforward and Circumventing, should we really be calling them Subconscious and Conscious Secondaries? Well, no. I'm afraid things aren't so simple. Many of you probably caught that I referred to the secondaries as being on a continuum. I believe that continuum looks something like this:

(SUB) Lions - Badgers and Snakes - Birds (CON)

Badgers and Snakes trust a mix of both their subconscious and conscious minds when solving problems. This is why, while mirroring others is a largely a subconscious process, Courtier Badgers are comfortable editing what energy they want to put out into the world. Conversely, while Snakes can consciously lead conversations in the directions they want, they use a lot of instinct on how to get there. In fact, improvising is a mostly gut instinct reaction in Snake Secondaries.

This brings us to another important point: Built and Improvisational Secondaries. Improvisational Secondaries rely mostly on their gut instincts when improvising. Built Secondaries rely on looking back on their previous experiences and knowledge that they've gathered over time and considering how they can apply what they learned in the past to the present situation. Again, we have a clear link to intuition and thought: Improvisational Secondaries trust the subconscious mind and Built Secondaries use the conscious mind to guide them.

This is one of the ways you can tell the difference between a Lion or Snake versus a Rapid-Fire Bird or Coiled Spring Badger. All of them can improvise under the right circumstances, but because it's a more conscious process for Built Secondaries they can explain what knowledge or experience they have that informs them that whatever solution they're scrounging up will work. In media, you will almost always have the Built Secondary explain the reasoning behind their improvisation to the audience. Meanwhile, for Improvisational Secondaries relying on intuition, they often can't fully explain their reasoning in the moment.

So, how does this look with the Multiplayer side of the secondaries? While the Circumventing Secondaries protect themselves with social armor, Snakes improvise this protective layer in the moment according to what they read from their audience, but Actor Birds need time and preparation to build their role. It is often difficult for Actor Birds to go with their gut and go off script. While a Snake can react to new people in the moment using their intuition, Actor Birds do much better if they know what their audience will expect of them so that they can mentally prepare before they hit the stage.

Courtier Badgers need to build in a very similar way. It's often difficult and tiring for them to cold read people and mirror without taking the time to get to know their audience. They are more comfortable forming their reactions off of what they learn over time versus initial subconscious reactions. And given enough time, Courtier Badgers can build themselves into what they see the people around them need them to be.

But what about Lion Secondaries? Well, it's comparing apples and oranges to compare the other Multiplayer skills to the brash honesty we all think of when we think of Lions. That authenticity isn't a Multiplayer skill so much as a Neutral state. But you know what skill Lions do use in Multiplayer situations? Lying. As I touched on before, it can be difficult for Straightforward Secondaries to misrepresent consciously what they know to be true, so Lions lie by emphasizing the parts of the lie they consider the truth. They magnify certain pieces of themself, such as magnifying the bit of them that is happy to be eating food their friend made, even if they hate that particular dish. This, I would argue, is related to how Courtier Badgers mirror by emphasizing the parts of themselves they see their audience needs. The difference is that Lions are comfortable magnifying pieces of themselves like this without knowing their audience, using whatever piece of themselves intuitively fits the moment, while Courtier Badgers prefer building on input from their audience.

As for our final Secondary descriptors, Solid and Fluid, I'm afraid I don't have much more to say that I haven't already. Looking at my proposed continuum, Fluid Secondaries are the ones in the middle of the continuum with Solid on either side, implying that reading and reacting to people in a Fluid way needs a mix of both subconscious intuition and conscious thought. More specifically that Fluid Secondaries tend to rely more on conscious processes to read people, as with Badgers building a rapport and understanding with their audience and Snakes continually reassessing their audience while circumventing, while reacting, whether its a Badger mirroring or a Snake improvising, is a more subconscious process for Fluid Secondaries.

Bonus thought:

If you've taken the time to read this far, I figure we might as well go all the way and acknowledge there is a very similar continuum in the Primaries. I suggest:

(SUB) Internal - External (CON)

(SUB) Felt - Constructed (CON)

So, again, we have a continuum like this:

(SUB) Lion - Badger and Snake - Bird (CON)

[magpie-of-a-birb]

HEY, GUYS, REMEMBER HOW @wisteria-lodge ASKED WHAT SORTINGS EVERYONE IN THE SHC COMMUNITY HAD?

I DECIDED TO MAKE A QUIZ SO THAT WE CAN EASILY COMPILE AND ANALYZE THAT DATA

HERE IT IS!

(Also posting the link in case it's easier for some)

Collecting data on people in the shc community to see if there are any patterns, quiz made by a ravenclaw/bird secondary

Tagging some peeps I know would be interested in order to get the ball rolling. Yall feel free to tag others, if so inclined

@mooglesorts @dragonsaredorks @paint-the-ravenclaw @the-phoenix-heart @aythnic @aubade-things

[everyonewasabird]

@persefoneshalott

replied to your

post

:

I maybe got to looking at Sorting Hat Chats...

differences on how she acts or how bad she’d feel about it depending on her house. But that’s a good point about Tholomyes! I like Slytherin Fantine so : D I don’t remember about Javert I think juxta was the one who said he was a gryffindor??

Javert as a Gryffindor primary?? That is...huh. That's *fascinating.*

I see how in terms of Madeleine especially he operates on a gut sense of This Is Wrong--at the same time, he really doesn't *believe* in believing his own moral judgment. But I could imagine a horrible twisted burned Gryffindor in there, crushing his instincts because he's a "miserable" and Society Knows Best.

When he denounces Madeleine and the letter comes back that he's crazy, or when he writes his notes for the improvement of the service and the conclusion of everyone including Valjean was that he was crazy... he's used to being told any instincts that question the status quo are wrong and aberrant, and he's used to internalizing that. So yeah, I can see it!

God. Every time I think I think my heart can't break for Javert.D:

ETA: No one could possibly hate being sorted into Gryffindor House more than Javert would hate it.

[reds-burrow]

Wait so Lions are Neutral?

I’ve actually had this thought pretty much since I started this blog, although my thinking on it has changed in some ways. Essentially, the base of a Secondary is a Single-Player skill and a Neutral state. A Neutral state is our sense of self, unedited, without the influence of others. If you’ve interacted with young children, you probably know how blunt and unfiltered they can be. But are all those kids Lion Secondaries? Probably not. As they grow, many (though not necessarily all) of them will develop a Multiplayer skill, usually based on their Single-Player skill, that they may use instead of their Neutral in social situations. Some use their Multiplayer all the time, some only when they feel it’s needed, and some don’t feel comfortable using Multiplayer skills with any regularity, if at all. Lions fall into that last category. The brash authenticity that we associate with Lions, we’d also expect from the other Neutrals. Lions usually don’t build a Multiplayer skill more complicated than the basics because being their authentic self is much more comfortable for them. [EDIT: While I still maintain everything else in this post, Wisteria has reshaped my thinking on the Lion multiplayer by accurately pinpointing these “basics” that I referred to as a “Beacon Lion.”]

A few other thoughts about Neutrals since we’re here:

- Neutral states still display the qualities of their Secondary, so they don’t all look the same. For example, Lions and Neutral Snakes have been described as unstoppable forces and immovable objects respectively because they are Straightforward and Circumventing respectively. Unlike Improvising Secondaries, Built Secondaries will still be uncompromising on what they have built (their Collections for Birds and their Methods for Badgers). This is particularly noticeable in social situations for Birds who won’t budge on the facts they know to be true.

- People’s Primaries also tend to shine through when they’re in their Neutral because they tend to speak out more directly, unafraid to step on people’s toes, about their Primary values. Many people will drop their Multiplayer when something rubs their Primary the wrong way.

- Some people develop their Multiplayer so well that it even influences their sense of who they are. Snakes and Badgers are the most likely for this to happen to because, as Fluid Secondaries, they are able to shift and change enough to live in their Multiplayer 24/7. If these Fluid Multiplayers Explode, a person can lose track of their sense of self.

- Snake Secondaries were probably the first ones identified as having a Neutral because they have the most noticeable difference between their Neutral and Multiplayer. They can live in their mask (unlike Actor Birds who often revert back to their Neutral between roles) and aren’t always authentic (unlike Courtier Badgers who draw on their Neutral while mirroring).

- The official description of a Badger Secondary briefly mentions what a Neutral/Bookkeeper Badger looks like socially. “A [Badger] who is invested in their work, rather than people, is as likely as a [Lion] to step on toes.”

[wisteria-lodge]

Is it possible to have more than one primary or/and more than one secondary WITHOUT it being a model or perfomance?

In fiction... no not really. I think if you tried to sit down a write a character with more than one primary/secondary, that character would end up seeming unfocused, vague, not very well thought out. But then, characters are generally not as complex as people. Most of them don't even have *models.*

When it comes to a person... the idea that someone could have two secondaries that they love equally, and use equally - or a model that they built so young, and which is so much a part of them that it effectively is a second secondary... okay. I haven't seen it, but I could imagine it happening.

Primaries though... the idea is they're mutually exclusive. The game is - if you HAD to pick one. If you had to choose EITHER your people, your community, your logic, or your feeling, which would it be? Obviously that would be a terrible choice, but I do think that everyone has AN answer that feels most moral (and would make them feel least guilty.) And that's your primary.

[reds-burrow]

if one part of the secondary can burn separately then it's also possible for one part of the secondary to explode separately, right?

Oooh, yes, very good point. Though now that I think about it, the @swearingintengwar's insightful explanation of Exploded Secondaries are all Single-Player explosions.

I suppose for Multiplayer explosions you could have Fluid Secondaries who need people to give them shape and Solid secondaries who are inflexible with others... Okay just spitballing here. If anyone has better thoughts, please share!

Exploded Courtier Badgers define themself by what others want or need them to be. If the group needs them to be something they're not, they'll alter themself to fit the role, even if it's a role they don't want. Their search for common ground begins to work against them: if they spend too much time mirroring someone else, the Badger will loose track of where they end and the other person begins.

Exploded social Birds are know-it-alls. They are unyielding with the facts and knowledge they've collected to the point that they refuse to hear new viewpoints on it. Their collection is superior to all others, so their thoughts on the subject is final.

Exploded social Lions are brash and arrogant to the extreme of being hurtful to others. Their usual, healthy, assertive energy becomes aggressive. They may excuse their behavior as just being honest or true to themself, but they knowingly bulldoze over other thoughts and opinions like a bully.

Exploded masked Snakes have lost their grounding sense of who they are. The internal resting space of their neutral state is unreachable, leaving the Snake with nothing but their masks. But without a neutral state to tether their masks, they become completely dependent on reacting to other people to find a face to put on. Being alone only reminds them how pained or empty they feel underneath the act.

[reds-burrow]

Something came up in my sorting for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings that I thought I should separate out in case people aren't interested in that post or are avoiding spoilers. (If you like the MCU and can watch safely, I highly recommend it!)

One of the characters had a Burnt Secondary, but wasn't fully burnt. In fact, only the Multiplayer part of the secondary was burnt; the Single-Player part was perfectly healthy. Now that we've begun talking about Multiplayer versus Single-Player, I think it's not too much of a stretch to say that only burning one part makes sense as a possibility. I've rambled some about how I'm a Snake secondary who uses Courtier Badger instead of a mask. I didn't feel right calling my Snake burnt because I was still using it in Single-Player situations. I joked that I follow PvP rules but not PvE. But if it's possible for one side to burn while the other stays relatively healthy or for one half to heal from a burning while the other half stays burnt, it makes a lot more sense for me to say my Multiplayer Snake is burnt while my Single-Player Snake isn't and that I built a Courtier Badger model to handle social situations.

Obviously, the Single-Player and Multiplayer parts of the secondary are connected. A vast majority of the time I would expect them to burn together or that one side burning will lead to the other burning too. But I think making the distinction that they can burn and heal separately is an important possibility to explore.